Kelly the Dog Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I know, and I'm not saying your position is complete horseshit, as your position seems to be nothing more than "This is what the Senate said." I'm saying McCain's position is complete horseshit. Even the way you paraphrase it above. Especially the way you paraphrase it above: the federal government grants license to use frequencies, it does NOT determine what programming goes over those airwaves (beyond the caveats I've already mentioned - and I stipulate that "decency" laws and censorship related to such are a different topic.) Furthermore, McCain's position, if your paraphrase is accurate (I have no reason to believe it's not), is doubly horseshit, as he is as a legislator interpreting the Constitution in a manner that is not within his powers as a legislator as specified by the Constitution. Deciding if the First Amendment applies to a government-licensed private corporation is a function of the courts (specifically the Supreme Court, which is where any such challenge would end up ultimately), not the Senate. McCain was talking out of his ass on this issue. Clear Channel is well within their rights to restrict their programming however they want. That they acted stupidly (and counter to their purpose - the Dixie Chicks in general and their politics in particular probably got MORE exposure from Clear Channel's censorship than they would have if CC had just ignored the issue) is another discussion...but they were well within their rights to act stupidly, as there's no First Amendment prohibition against being morons, either. In fact, the First Amendment rather encourages it. My explanation and paraphrase was probably too simplistic, if not leaving out a part or getting some of it wrong. I just know that McCain seemed to be lumping all kinds of issues together to show why this media consolidation is a bad thing and needs to be stopped now because it was getting to be a problem or potential problems. The hearings were about media consolidation and why it was getting worse and has potential for abuse. This was an example, if not the prime example, of how and why it is potentially bad. And on its surface, you seem to be absolutely right that they are not specifically violating any first amendment laws, and the Senate should not be deciding it. But you also know how these things work, and they always overstep their bounds if only to bring things out in the open (this is sometimes good and most often bad). And taken as a whole, the monopoly of markets and the airwaves is probably a bad thing. And that it does, when there is a monopoly, in practicality, sometimes abuse the airwaves and deprive citizens of certain rights. You probably don't believe that, and I can understand why. It's a murky area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 So it seems Maines thinks that by getting a gaggle of Grammys, the American Public was "practicing its rights to Free Speech". But when they did the same a few years ago AGAINST her, the American Public was "practicing censorship." So.....when the "speech" is favorable...its "free speech!!" Bad? its "censorship" or as that wonderful scribe Garafalo described it..."Nazi stuff." Which is exactly my point back on page one of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Think hard about that statement, and get back to me on what's wrong with it. well i'm trying hard... and don't find anything wrong... it's just the definition of an anti trust violation... well if you love monopolies why don't you move here in France, we still have tons of State Monopolies and it's soooo fun to pay more for less! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 So it seems Maines thinks that by getting a gaggle of Grammys, the American Public was "practicing its rights to Free Speech". But when they did the same a few years ago AGAINST her, the American Public was "practicing censorship." So.....when the "speech" is favorable...its "free speech!!" Bad? its "censorship" or as that wonderful scribe Garafalo described it..."Nazi stuff." Which is exactly my point back on page one of this thread. If she thinks the American public was responsible for her Grammy awards, she is dumber than she looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 So it seems Maines thinks that by getting a gaggle of Grammys, the American Public was "practicing its rights to Free Speech". But when they did the same a few years ago AGAINST her, the American Public was "practicing censorship." So.....when the "speech" is favorable...its "free speech!!" Bad? its "censorship" or as that wonderful scribe Garafalo described it..."Nazi stuff." Which is exactly my point back on page one of this thread. Burning CDs, or running them over with a tractor or whatever, is Nazi like. So was all the hatemail threatening their lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Burning CDs, or running them over with a tractor or whatever, is Nazi like. It's just recycling! They were already bought. I can dispose of garbage if I want. By Goodwins Law, you have lost this arguement too. Give it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Burning CDs, or running them over with a tractor or whatever, is Nazi like. So was all the hatemail threatening their lives Youre kidding. There have been plenty of times through history where groups of people got together and had demonstrations like that. What the Nazis did was far and above a petty demonstration made-for-tv where a couple of copies of the DCs records were smashed to show how people dont like the DC's music and their politics. To compare some radio station down South doing a publicity stunt to give a proverbial 'middle finger' to the DC, to what the Jews endured in Nazi Germany is beyond stupid. But with you...nothing shocks anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Youre kidding. There have been plenty of times through history where groups of people got together and had demonstrations like that. What the Nazis did was far and above a petty demonstration made-for-tv where a couple of copies of the DCs records were smashed to show how people dont like the DC's music and their politics. To compare some radio station down South doing a publicity stunt to give a proverbial 'middle finger' to the DC, to what the Jews endured in Nazi Germany is beyond stupid. But with you...nothing shocks anymore. I think you are over-reacting a bit here. The book burnings of 1933 pre-dated the genocides and were quintesentially Nazi. Private lament: nobody is allowed decent Nazi analogies anymore. Nazi are too bad to be compared to anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 well i'm trying hard... and don't find anything wrong... it's just the definition of an anti trust violation... well if you love monopolies why don't you move here in France, we still have tons of State Monopolies and it's soooo fun to pay more for less! Well...maybe in France it's different, but on this side of the pond "anti-trust" is not defined by what a company decides to sell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Well...maybe in France it's different, but on this side of the pond "anti-trust" is not defined by what a company decides to sell... ???? yeah right!! The anti trust laws of the UE as all anti trust laws in the world have been copied on the old american anti trust laws. That are defined by the control by one company of a market and the unfair decisions in terms of prices, quality and quantity that the company may take thanks to this control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I think you are over-reacting a bit here.The book burnings of 1933 pre-dated the genocides and were quintesentially Nazi. Private lament: nobody is allowed decent Nazi analogies anymore. Nazi are too bad to be compared to anybody. Fair enough....I can see the distinction. I still think those silly radio station "record smashing" stunts being compared to the book burnings of Nazi Germany is WAY out there. And I agree with you on the Nazi-comparison thing. Its right up there with the race card when debating an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 ???? yeah right!! The anti trust laws of the UE as all anti trust laws in the world have been copied on the old american anti trust laws. That are defined by the control by one company of a market and the unfair decisions in terms of prices, quality and quantity that the company may take thanks to this control. Being DOMINANT in a market and COMPLETELY CONTROLLING it are two very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 ???? yeah right!! The anti trust laws of the UE as all anti trust laws in the world have been copied on the old american anti trust laws. That are defined by the control by one company of a market and the unfair decisions in terms of prices, quality and quantity that the company may take thanks to this control. In other words, how a company decides to sell, not "what". Specifically, whether a company decides to use excessive market share to stifle competition. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk up your earlier bad definition to foreign language skills (I'm not just being a smartass...I know enough foreign languages to know that "how" and "what" can be grammatically indistinguishable in translation in some languages.) And even in that case...it is NOT an anti-trust violation for Clear Channel to determine their own programming. It may be an anti-trust violation for them to exist controlling 80% of the market...but that has precisely jack sh-- to do with the Dixie Chicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 And even in that case...it is NOT an anti-trust violation for Clear Channel to determine their own programming. It may be an anti-trust violation for them to exist controlling 80% of the market...but that has precisely jack sh-- to do with the Dixie Chicks. Basically that's it. Congresscritters didn't like CC because of what they represented with regard to corporate radio, so they decided to take up the Dixie Chicks action and throw a whole slew of public pronouncements at the corporate evildoers. Few of those charges would hold up in court, but it did serve as a warning shot that more regulation would be forthcoming if they didn't clean up their act (whatever that may have meant). I do have to admit that using the free speech and restraint of interstate commerce was a novel interpretation of the laws. Obviously, it didn't matter, since the public got fixated on the charges, without recognizing the emptiness behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Burning CDs, or running them over with a tractor or whatever, is Nazi like. So was all the hatemail threatening their lives Anyone want to bet molson considers boycotting the Dixie Chicks censorship, but boycotting Clear Channel perfectly legitimate? And doesn't see the inherent contradiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Anyone want to bet molson considers boycotting the Dixie Chicks censorship, but boycotting Clear Channel perfectly legitimate? And doesn't see the inherent contradiction? But.. but... Nazis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 But.. but... Nazis! This man is Ernest Scribbler: writer of jokes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 This man is Ernest Scribbler: writer of jokes! The most deadly joke in the world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'm not a Dixie Chick fan, nor could I name one of their songs, but when Clear Channel Communications bans your records it is significant - don' t they control over 80% of the commercial radio market in the country? It was clearly censorship. It was not, however, a 1st Amendment issue. Thank you, thank you...somebody gets it! Of course the music buying public is free to choose not to buy their records, if a rather simple, harmless comment means that much to them. They suffered the backlash of loose lips, and not catering to a large part of their audience. It is their (rather Natalie Maines) fault. However, the Clear Channel black-balling is a significant example of censorship. You may hate the Chicks, but anyone who pretends to be concerned about any of this stuff, should be concerned that one company is allowed to weild that much influence. BTW- Clear Channel not only controls a significant percentage of the country radio market, but the radio market in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Anyone want to bet molson considers boycotting the Dixie Chicks censorship, but boycotting Clear Channel perfectly legitimate? And doesn't see the inherent contradiction? Sometimes you make sense and then there are times like this. Totally ignorant BS. Never think I'm anywhere near as stupid as you, that would be a mistake. I never said anything that would lead you to this conclusion. Just like others on this board you emotionally feel your way to a conclusion. Boycotts are fine with me. I have never said otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts